holding that a mere payment of money is insufficient to except an oral land transaction from the statute of frauds but that “payment accompanied by an entry into possession under the contract is such a part performance as will support the bill”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a mere payment of money is insufficient to except an oral land transaction from the statute of frauds but that “payment accompanied by an entry into possession under the contract is such a part performance as will support the bill”
- holding under Hawaii law that "petitioners being in open possession the law imposes upon respondents the duty to make reasonable inquiry as to the rights of the persons in possession"
- holding that "petitioners being in open possession the law imposes upon respondents the duty to make reasonable inquiry as to the rights of the persons in possession"
- oral lease of real property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION OP
EDINGS, J.
I am unable to concur in tbe foregoing opinion and therefore respectfully dissent.